The British Broadcasting Corporation, which has no concept of men having rights, has been popularising the idea that male circumcision cuts HIV risk.  When the BBC deals with female circumcision, by contrast, the emphasis is on the pain and danger to female health that it allegedly causes. 

When you try to find some biological reason for male circumcision cutting the HIV risk, you come across the article Male Circumcision and HIV/AIDS: Opportunities and Challenges.  This states:

"The mechanism thought to be responsible for reduced risk of incident HIV-1 infection in circumcised males is the presence of a significantly higher concentration of Langerhans cells, which are target cells for HIV-1 in the mucosal layer of the foreskin(19). Additionally, keratin is believed to provide a protective barrier against HIV-1 infection(20). The penile shaft and outer foreskin surface are well keratinized, while the inner mucosal layer of the foreskin is not(21). It is also argued that the sensitive foreskin may be more susceptible to micro-abrasion during sexual intercourse, which could provides an entry for STIs and HIV(22)."

Thus, the three factors which that article isolates are:

1. Langerhans cells (likely to increase HIV risk);
2. keratin (likely to decrease HIV risk); and
3. sensitive skin (likely to increase HIV risk).

Note the double standard:  When the BBC mentions the sensitivity of the clitoris, it emphasises th pain that cutting sensitive skin causes.  By contrast, when the above article mentions the sensitivity of the foreskin, it is in order to suggest cutting it, because it might let HIV in!  Of course, the BBC and the authors of the article are not the same people. but what we have here is Western cultural blindness to the idea that men have rights, on the one hand, and an obsession witht the rights of women, on the other.

The article "Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: for Better or for Worse?" which used to be available at http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandHIVinfectionintanzania.pdf , states:

• The surprising and perplexing significant inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV serpositivity (my emphasis -- PZ) has not been explained by other variables available and examined in these analyses
• As no biological mechanism seems plausible, we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding

However, recall the three factors previously mentioned as being involved in HIV risk in uncircumcised males:

• Langerhans cells (likely to increase HIV risk);
• keratin (likely to decrease HIV risk); and
• sensitive skin (likely to increase HIV risk).

If you research the detailed structure of female genitalia, you come across the following passages in The vulva: anatomy, physiology, and pathology By Miranda A. Farage, Howard I. Maibach:

"Cutaneous thickness and degree of keratinization (my emphasis -- PZ) are relatively high on the mons pubis and labia majora, but decrease over the anterior portions of the clitoris, and decline progressively from the outer surface to the inner surface of the labia minora."

and

"Three specialised cells -- melanocytes, Langerhans cells (my emphasis -- PZ), and Merkel cells -- also reside in the epidermis."

As in the case of the foreskin, we see here that keratin is more a feature of the outer surface of the labia minora than of their inner surface.  Moreover, we see that Langerhans cells are present in the vulva, as well as on the foreskin.  There are various types of female circumcision, but already we see here what the biological mechanism might be for reduced HIV risk in circumcised females.

It is typical of the academic lies that dominate our Feminised world, that:

1. Something that causes pain to males is promoted as a good thing;

2. When something that causes pain to women is found to have a positive side, the researchers cannot believe their own results;

3. The article which reported that something that causes pain to women has a positive side is then removed from the Web.

 

Last Update: 19 August 2009